70 N.Y.S.
Volume 70 — New York Supplement
130 opinions
- 70 N.Y.S. 10McSorley v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (1901)Reversed
Action by Charles McSorley, as administrator of James McSorley,. deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant entered on dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint at the close of his case, he appeals..
- 70 N.Y.S. 86Logan v. Simpson (1901)Affirmed
Action by William J. Logan against John W. Simpson and others, as executors of John Gy Moore, deceased; and others. From a judgment in favor of certain defendants, plaintiff and defendant Benedict appeal.
- 70 N.Y.S. 136Perkins v. Montgomery (1897)Demurrers sustained
<p>1. Interpleader—-Rival Claims—Bona Fide Controversy.</p> <p>It is insufficient to sustain a bill of interpleader that rival claims had been made for the fund, without a further showing that a bona fide controversy existed between the rival claimants.</p> <p>9. Same—Complaint—Attachment—Levy on Choses in Action—Intermediate Title.</p> <p>The fund held by plaintiff in a bill of interpleader consisted of dividends on certain certificates originally issued to H. by plaintiff’s predecessors in the trust. H. transferred the stocks to one who in turn transferred them to W. Twelve years after the transfer from H., and nine years after W. was registered on the trustee’s books as owner of the certificates, M. brought suit against H., in which attachments were issued and levied on H.’s interest in such certificates. Answers were interposed, but no further steps were taken in the actions. M. claimed that the intermediate transfers from H. to W. were merely colorable. Held, that a complaint setting forth such facts, was insufficient to sustain a bill of interpleader, since the attachment gave M. no right to the certificates; an attachment lien being merely constructive as to choses in action, and inoperative through an intermediate title.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 195Gabler v. McChesney (1901)reversed
<p>Shipping—Demurrage—Detention op Canal Boat—Break in Canal.</p> <p>A contract of shipment, making the consignee liable for demurrage in a certain sum per day for failure to unload a canal boat in a given time, does not authorize a recovery for the time after the boat was unloaded in which it was detained in the canal, though the vessel was not unloaded within the period allowed therefor, and the break in the canal did not occur until the expiration of such time.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 296Jones v. Mayor (1901)Affirmed
- 70 N.Y.S. 429In re Huntington's Estate (1901)Reversed
In the matter of the appraisal, under the act in relation to the •transfer tax, of the property of Charles P. Huntington, deceased. From the appraiser’s report certain devisees appeal.
- 70 N.Y.S. 543Moody v. Becker (1901)Reversed
■Appeal from justice court. Action by George E. Moody against Fred H. Becker, as president, etc. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals.
- 70 N.Y.S. 762Berkeley v. Kennedy (1901)
<p>Appeal from special term. ¡New York county.</p> <p>Action by Lancelot M. Berkeley, as substituted trustee under the will of Patrick Kennedy, deceased, against Andrew J. Kennedy, Mary Kennedy, and others. From an order directing a deposit in court to be paid to Mary Kennedy, plaintiff and Andrew J. Kennedy appeal* Modified.</p> <p>Michael Kennedy, who was an heir of Patrick Kennedy, died before the distribution of the estate, and the administratrix of Michael Kennedy filed a motion that a deposit in court' of $1,080 as his interest in the estate of Patrick Kennedy be paid to her.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 770Mathiasen v. Barkin (1901)Eeversed
Action by Karl Mathiasen against Samuel Barkin and others to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a judgment of the special term of the supreme court in favor of plaintiff, defendant Barkin appeals.
- 70 N.Y.S. 819Tiedemann v. Dry Dock, East Broadway & Battery Railroad (1901)Reversed
<p>'Trial—Default—Failure to Secure Counsel—Setting Aside Verdict— Opening Inquest.</p> <p>Where a cause was on the day calendar for trial, and was passed because defendant’s counsel was engaged in another court, it being mutually understood that the trial should proceed on the next day, but it was subsequently learned that defendant’s counsel would be unable' to be present on that day, and, after the exercise of due diligence', defendant was unable to procure other counsel to represent it, and suffered default, defendant’s failure to be prepared for trial was excusable, and it was entitled to an order opening an inquest and setting aside a verdict had on default.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 820Collins v. Fowler (1901)Affirmed
<p>Conte acts—Work and Labor—Materials Furnished—Evidence—Agency.</p> <p>Where a third person was employed to superintend work to be done for defendant, and was to be paid 10 per cent, on the wholesale cost thereof, and was to use his discretion as to where he should get the work done, and he employed plaintiff, who furnished the materials and did the work, defendant was liable to plaintiff for the reasonable value of the work, and it was immaterial that the third person at the time was in plaintiff’s employ, defendant being aware of that fact.</p> <p>Patterson, J., dissenting.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 823People ex rel. O'Connor v. Brady (1901)Writ dismissed
<p>Municipal Civil Service—Inspector of Buildings—Veteran of Civil War —Removal—Sufficient Hearing.</p> <p>Where relator, who was a veteran of the war of the Rebellion, was removed from his position as inspector of buildings after a full hearing, in which his failure to make proper entries in his journal and his making a false report were proven by his own books and admissions, such removal was proper.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 836People ex rel. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Feitner (1901)Affirmed
- 70 N.Y.S. 837Town Board of Jamaica v. Denton (1895)Overruled
Petition by the town board of the town of Jamaica for the appointment of commissioners to appraise the compensation to be paid for land to be taken for the town hall. Objections of landowners to the ° proceedings.
- 70 N.Y.S. 899Keller v. Cleary (1901)Reversed
<p>Appeal from court of special sessions of city of New York.</p> <p>Bastardy proceedings by John W. Keller, as commissioner of public charities, on the complaint of Teresa Heitzmann, against John . I*. Cleary, alleged to be the putative father of a bastard child. From an order of filiation, defendant appeals.</p> <p>The evidence showed that the child was born in New Jersey, and that the mother removed to New York thereafter.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 901Stutzbach v. Coler (1901)Reversed
Application of Otto Stutzbach for mandamus to require Bird S.. Coler, as comptroller of the city of Hew York, to reinstate petitioner' as warrant clerk. From an order of special term denying the writ (68. H. Y. Supp. 738), petitioner appeals.
- 70 N.Y.S. 910Koppel v. Tilyou (1900)
<p>Action by Dora Koppel against George E. Tilyou, as executor of Ellen Tilyou, deceased, to recover possession of lands. Judgment ■for defendant.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 916New York Co-operative Building & Loan Ass'n v. Brennan (1901)
Suit by the New York Co-operative Building & Loan Association against Teressa Brennan and others for the foreclosure of a mortgage. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified.
- 70 N.Y.S. 982People ex rel. Pettit v. Kane (1901)Denied
<p>Motion by the people, on the relation of one Pettit, against one Kane.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 995Second National Bank v. Weston (1901)Reversed
Action by the Second National Bank of the City of Elmira against Charles Weston, executor, impleaded with others. From a judgment entered after direction of a verdict for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
- 70 N.Y.S. 1011Schmidt v. McCaffrey (1901)
<p>Action by George Schmidt against Robert McCaffrey. Motion to strike out answer as sham denied.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1050In re Fuller's Estate (1901)
<p>In the matter of the appraisal for taxation of the estate of Sarah Rockwell Fuller. Application for the appointment of an appraiser granted.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1065Smith v. Keteltas (1901)Affirmed
<p>Trusts—Real Estate—Improvement—Authority—Expenditure — Credit— Trustee—Rights.</p> <p>A part of the land of a trust estate was condemned for a park, and the buildings on a part of the remainder had become unsafe and had been condemned by the building department, but there was no evidence that the trustee had not performed his duty in making repairs. The trustee used a part of the award received for the park in tearing down the condemned buildings and erecting modern ones. Meld, that the contention that the trustee was not entitled to credit for the money so expended, because he had no authority to use the corpus of the estate in erecting new buildings, could not be sustained, since the expenditure was proper and of advantage to the estate, in rendering unproductive property productive.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134A. M. McPhail Piano Co. v. Bannon (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Anderson v. Daley (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Associate Alumni v. General Theological Seminary (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Allen v. Armstrong (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Ball & Wood Co. v. Comstock (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Adams v. Elwood (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Alexander v. Riker (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Allen v. Town of Allen (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134Anderson v. Kortright (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1134In re Arkenburgh (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Barber v. Lane (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Brienza v. Rofrano (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Brintnell v. Rice (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Brunner v. Bournonville (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Brantingham v. Huff (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Brienza v. Rofrano (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Bechensky v. Stotzky (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Binzen v. Epstein (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Bell v. Murphy (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Birrell v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Bissing v. Smith (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1135Bostrom v. Halloran (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Chambers v. Allen (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Clark v. Dolfini (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Campbell v. Valentine (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Carr v. Butler (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Cheesebro v. Corning (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Cheesebro v. Corning (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Church v. Standard Railroad Signal Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Churchill v. City of Buffalo (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Cody v. First National Bank of Springfield (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1136Conway v. City of Yonkers (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1137Cooper v. Cooper (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1137Corcoran v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1137Cortland Home Telephone Co. v. Huntington (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1137Cottle v. Cary (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1137Delafield v. J. K. Armsby Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1138Dutchess Tool Co. v. Kolb (1901)
<p>Action by the Dutchess Tool .Company against Louis J. Kolb.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1138Delaney v. Levy (1901)
<p>Action by Kate Delaney against Charles Levy.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1139Fox v. Ireland (1901)
<p>Action by William H. Fox against John B. Ireland. I. D. Warren for appellant.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1139Everson v. Hefferman (1901)
<p>Action by Alice M. Everson against Timothy Hefferman.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Howe v. Town of Vienna (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Hall v. Bond (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Halpin v. Coleman (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Harper v. Albany Railway (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Hentz v. Havemeyer (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Hagan v. Ward (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Hasbrouck v. Eichorn (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Heath v. Koch (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Heffron v. Jennings (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Henderson v. Obrig (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Henry v. Rowell (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140In re Hazelton (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1140Hoye v. Ciancimino (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Kirby v. Barlow (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Kraner v. Gross (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Johnson v. Rochester Railway Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Johnstown Mining Co. v. Butte & Boston Consolidated Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Keirns v. New York & Harlem Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Israel v. Metropolitan Elevated Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Hunter v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141In re Kelly (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Irving Savings Institution v. ROBINSON (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Jones v. Jones (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1141Kind v. Gottlieb (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Langdon v. Hawley Salt Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Leroy v. Ash (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Larkins v. Dunkirk Savings & Loan Ass'n (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Liebman v. Hurst (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Loder v. Lindstrom (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Long Island Railroad v. Eichkern (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142Lowe v. Press Publishing Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142McDonald v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1142In re McCabe (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1143In re Maires (1901)
<p>In the matter of the appl'cation of Samuel Evans Maires for admission to the bar.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1144Megowan v. Peterson (1901)
<p>Action by James Megowan and William S. Goddard against Charles G. Peterson.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1144Marcellus Electric Railroad v. Parsons (1901)
<p>Action by the Marcellus Electric Railroad Company against Levi Parsons and others. From an order vacating and setting aside the report and award of commissioners, the plaintiff appeals. Modified-.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1144Merna v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad (1901)
<p>Action by Daniel Mema, an infant, by William J. P. Mema, his guardian ad litem, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1145In re Peabody (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1145Mosley v. Debo (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1145Nichols v. Backus (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1145Palliser v. Erhardt (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1145Naul v. Naul (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1145Paulson v. New Jersey & New York Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1146People ex rel. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Priest (1901)
Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, against George E. Priest, J. Edgar Leayeraft, and Lester F. Steams, together constituting the state hoard of tax commissioners.
- 70 N.Y.S. 1146People v. McKenna (1901)Reversed
<p>Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Patrick McKenna, impleaded with Wil-" liam Baker, on a forfeited recognizance. From an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and to set aside an execution issued thereon, defendant McKenna appeals.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1147People ex rel. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Priest (1901)
Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the Western Union Telegraph Company, against George E. Priest, J. Edgar Leaycraft, and Lester F. Steams, together constituting the state board of tax commissioners.
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Seaman v. Clarke (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148In re Smith (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148In re Saunders (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Roth v. Eighth Ward Bank (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Rudolph v. Ackerman (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Ruppert v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Sander v. New York & Harlem Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Schaus v. Glokner (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Schuylkill Fire Insurance v. Rowell (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Schwarzbart v. New York Sugar Refining Co. (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Sherman v. Tucker (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Shirden v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Shotwell v. Dixon (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1148Sisto v. Stimmel (1901)
- 70 N.Y.S. 1150In re Walsh (1901)Affirmed
<p>John Walsh made application for the appointment of a referee under Laws 1899, c. 700, to audit his claim for legal expenses against the city of New York. From an order denying the application, applicant appeals.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1151Village of Fayetteville v. Syracuse & Suburban Railroad (1901)
<p>Action by the village of Fayetteville against the Syracuse & Suburban Railroad Company, impleaded with another.</p>
- 70 N.Y.S. 1151Wilhelm v. Wilhelm (1901)
<p>Action by Carlo Wilhelm against Emil Wilhelm and another.</p>